Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Democratic Party’

GOP Rep: Pelosi Blocking Wuhan Investigation in Favor of Pinning Pandemic on Trump


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published May 6, 2020 at 12:38pm

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/gop-rep-pelosi-blocking-wuhan-investigation-favor-pinning-pandemic-trump/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear she’s going to work very hard to pin the coronavirus pandemic on President Donald Trump. Just don’t ask her to find out where the pandemic actually started.

Pelosi, as you may have heard, has put together a committee to oversee the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis. In a “Dear Colleague” letter, she assured everyone this was about ensuring the relief money was spent the way it was supposed to.

“We must make sure that the historic investment of taxpayer dollars made in the CARES Act is being used wisely and efficiently to help those in need, not be exploited by profiteers and price-gougers,” Pelosi wrote in the letter late last month, according to Politico.

However, you can probably tell where this whole thing is headed when you consider that each of the seven members she appointed to the committee were Democrats. The chairman, meanwhile, will be House Majority Whip James Clyburn, the South Carolina Democrat best known as the man who pretty much saved Joe Biden’s campaign by  endorsing him before the South Carolina primary in February. No conflict of interest there whatsoever.

Just don’t ask Pelosi to join an investigation of the origins of the novel coronavirus.

According to GOP Rep. Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania, his attempts to investigate a New York firm that sent money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology — potentially the source of the virus, according to some sources — have been stymied by Pelosi and House Democrats. During an appearance on “Breitbart News Saturday” this weekend, Reschenthaler talked about a letter he sent to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper regarding a Pentagon grant that went to EcoHealth Alliance, which has given money to the Wuhan institute on a number of occasions. (It’s unclear whether the Pentagon grant went directly to the Wuhan institute.)

Another grant he talked about involved the National Institutes of Health (in particular the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, run by Dr. Anthony Fauci) giving money to the EcoHealth Alliance — which, in turn, gave some of that money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to research coronaviruses in bats.

Just don’t expect much to come of any of this from Congress.

“We should have an investigative body looking at these grants, but Nancy Pelosi is not going to do that,” Reschenthaler said. “So you have myself and House Republicans. I can tell you I’m going to continue to look into these grants. I’m going to continue to look into the Department of Homeland Security as well to see what grants are going from there to China. I’m also looking at defunding the World Health Organization and we can talk about that as well.

“But the bottom line of the Democrats’ behavior is this: They hate this president so badly that they would rather side with the Chinese Communist Party than defend Americans and defend our spending and spend wisely and just be honest. That is their hatred for President Trump and disdain for President Trump’s supporters.”

Reschenthaler said he is trying to determine if money from the Pentagon grant went to the Wuhan lab.

“The [Department of Defense] also gave EcoHealth Alliance $6.5 million in a grant, and like you said, that grant was to understand bat-borne zoonotic disease in context with weapons of mass destruction, what I’m trying to find out is whether or not the DOD funding that went to EcoHealth also went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he said.

“We know that the NIH funding did, and we also know that all money is fungible, but I want to see if we can trace that money to Wuhan to see how much and to what extent the DOD and American taxpayers actually funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

His ability to investigate these grants has been blocked specifically because the Democrats are in control of the House of Representatives and have no intention of conducting such an investigation. They already have a committee to deal with the coronavirus, after all, and they’re going to investigate pretty much nothing else but Trump.

“It’s imperative that we as House Republicans take back the House in this next election because Nancy Pelosi and the far-left Democrats are thwarting everything we do,” Reschenthaler said. “I do have to say I cringe when the media says ‘Nancy Pelosi and the squad’ because that minimizes how far left this party has gone. It’s just not ‘the squad.’ It’s not just Nancy Pelosi. It’s most of their members.

“Look at the Green New Deal. When that was floated, half of their co-sponsors were on the Green New Deal. Most of these Democrats vote 90 plus percent of the time with [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez],” he continued.

“This party has moved drastically to the left to the point of siding with the CCP over Americans. They don’t want to get to the bottom of these grants and they also don’t want my resolution run on the floor about defunding the World Health Organization or at least getting Dr. Tedros [Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the WHO] to resign and getting an international organization to investigate how the World Health Organization was either grossly negligent in dealing with the Wuhan virus or how they worked hand-in-glove with the Chinese Communist Party in trying to cover up the virus early on. But that’s the extent of their hatred, again, of this president and his supporters where they will not run these bills and they will not do these investigations because, again, they would rather side with the CCP than do the right thing.”

Unless Republicans take back control of the House in November, the body isn’t going to be doing much when it comes to investigating how much money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, much less whether the institute was at all responsible for the accidental release of the coronavirus — something that the American intelligence community hasn’t ruled out and that the president and others in the administration say they’ve seen evidence of, according to NBC News.

“But I think whether or not this disease came from a bat through a wet market or it came from a lab, we’ve got to see where it originated and we’ve got to see what we can do to make sure we stop these pandemics in the future,” Reschenthaler said.

“That could be something like encouraging other nations to stop interactions at wet markets, which should be happening anyhow. If it originated in a lab and somehow leaked from the lab, we shouldn’t be funding labs that study virology and weapons of mass destruction in terms of biological weapons. We shouldn’t fund these labs unless they have procedures in place where the disease won’t leak out and kill 60,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands around the world. This is a very responsible thing to do as good stewards of taxpayer money.”

And, as Reschenthaler pointed out, we don’t know how much data on coronaviruses we got from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We know that we certainly didn’t get any investigators inside of China after the coronavirus went worldwide. We still haven’t gotten investigators on the ground in Hubei province — and we won’t. But what we will get is Clyburn’s committee, which features firebrands like Reps. Maxine Waters of California and Nydia Velazquez of New York, among others.

This will certainly be a way for Democrats to go after the Trump administration, at least until the election and possibly beyond. It could even be, as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called it, “another impeachment committee.”

But the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Don’t expect that to be investigated anytime soon — not until the Democrats are out of power in the House.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Senators Who Fought Kavanaugh Found Stumping for Biden Morning After Allegation Evidence Discovered


Commentary By Andrew J. Sciascia | Published April 26, 2020 at 6:41am

It was a shocking news-break Friday as reports indicated evidence had emerged supporting former Senate aide Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential primary nominee Joe Biden. Potentially more shocking, however, were Saturday morning developments that seemed to suggest that — just like that — the American left’s zero-tolerance, “Believe All Women” approach to sexual assault allegations against prominent figures in the D.C. political establishment had been put to rest.

According to The Intercept, video was found this week in the archives of CNN’s “Larry King Live” revealing an on-air phone call in 1993 in which a female caller complained that her daughter had had nowhere to turn for help with unspecified “problems” while working for a “prominent senator.” The caller is believed to have been Reade’s now-deceased mother.

Receiving incredibly little attention from the establishment media, Reade came forward in March with allegations Biden had, while she was a staffer in his office in 1993, forced himself upon her in private in a hallway in the Capitol complex, kissing her and penetrating her with his fingers.

Confirmation the “Larry King Live” caller was, in fact, Reade’s mother would support Reade’s claims that she had confided in others and considered coming forward shortly after the alleged assault would have taken place.

Still, the news about the phone call wasn’t enough to stop Democratic senators, and former bitter primary opponents, from expressing support for Biden just 24 hours later on social media. Likely still vying for a vice presidential nod, the senators were eager Saturday morning to kiss the boots of their good friend Biden, joining him in promoting a campaign event titled S.O.U.L. of the Nation Saturday.

Coming on the one-year anniversary of Biden’s campaign announcement, “SOUL Saturday” — for service, outreach, unity and leadership — is described as a day dedicated to celebrating American “communities’ heroes” in a time of crisis.

Coincidentally, the event also plays on Biden’s running narrative regarding his candidacy — which he describes as an attempt to “reclaim” the soul of America from the hands of mean, old President Donald Trump.

And wouldn’t you know it, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker had no problem slapping on fake smiles, painting their former opponent with rehearsed compliments and quoting his campaign slogans.

“I’m so grateful to be teaming up with [Joe Biden] to recognize all of the heroes fighting for us on the front lines,” Booker wrote in a Twitter post alongside a promotional video. “The biggest thing you can do today is a small act of kindness for someone else — so please, join us in this day of service.”

“Today I’m joining my friend [Joe Biden] and people across our nation who are coming together to take part in #SOULSaturday,” wrote Harris, whose most notable moment of campaign popularity came from insinuating Biden was an old racist.

“Let’s use this moment to show our appreciation for those on the front lines and connect with our friends and neighbors. We’re all in this together.”

Of course, no such pleasantries were made regarding then-D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh by any of the aforementioned senators at the time of his 2018 Supreme Court confirmation. In fact, Booker, Harris and Klobuchar were all clearly using their positions on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the Kavanaugh proceedings as a springboard for their eventual failed White House bids.

This is not to say sexual assault allegations should be taken lightly or ignored. To the contrary, they should be heard and investigated with the utmost seriousness and empathy. But presumption of innocence and all manner of due process were flung to the wind when Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D., came forward with consistently uncorroborated claims Kavanaugh had assaulted her at a party in high school. One allegation led to more and more still, each one less credible than the last.

Stories of a high school-aged Kavanaugh taking part in methodically planned date-rape rings and thrusting his genitals upon an unsuspecting woman at a Yale University party were all welcomed by Democrats and the media as though they were equally valid — because, once again, you had to “Believe All Women.” That is why Gillibrand repeatedly told the media and the nation that Ford had “no reason to lie,” according to CNN. That is why Klobuchar used her time questioning the judge as an opportunity to grandstand, assassinating his character with implications that his collegiate drinking habits somehow made him a sex criminal as well.

But I guess it’s too much to ask the same level of scrutiny be applied to Biden, even hours after the allegations against him seem to have taken on teeth.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Amy Klobuchar: ‘I Am Troubled by Having a Socialist Lead Our Ticket’


Posted by Kyle Morris | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/10/amy-klobuchar-i-am-troubled-by-having-a-socialist-lead-our-ticket/

WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 3: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on February 3, 2020 in Washington, DC. Closing arguments begin Monday after the Senate voted to block witnesses from appearing in the impeachment trial. The final vote is … Alex Edelman/Getty Images

Democrat presidential hopeful and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), during an interview with CBS News, said she is “troubled” by the thought that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) could lead the Democrat Party’s ticket in November against President Donald Trump.

Klobuchar’s remarks were made during an interview with CBS News’s Ed O’Keefe on her campaign bus after an event in Keene, New Hampshire. O’Keefe pressed Klobuchar on her decision to raise her hand on the debate stage after the candidates were questioned on whether they worry about having a democratic socialist for a presidential nominee.

“The question should be why didn’t everyone else raise their hand?” Klobuchar told O’Keefe. “But they didn’t because people are looking at each other, and it may not be popular, and you’re going to anger some people, but I believe in leading and doing what you think is right, and that’s why I raised my hand because I am troubled by having a socialist lead our ticket.”

Klobuchar also said voters “are tired of the extremes in our politics and the noise and the nonsense” and claimed they want a candidate who can “bring in ideas and actually get them done.”

The Minnesota senator went on to say that it would be a “lot tougher” for freshman Democrats to keep their seats in November should Sanders be the nominee.

“The debates have been an even playing field for me,” Klobuchar told CBS News. “People can’t buy their way into being able to respond on the debate stage. They can’t have the bigger name. So, people are able to look at the candidates and think, ‘Wait a minute, who can really stand up to Donald Trump? Who has ideas that are similar to mine?’”

According to a national average from Real Clear Politics, Klobuchar sits in sixth place with 4.3 percent support from voters.

Follow Kyle on Twitter @RealKyleMorris and Facebook.

Whistleblower had ‘professional’ tie to 2020 Democratic candidate


Written by Byron York  | October 08, 2019 03:04 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

In an Aug. 26 letter, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, wrote that the anonymous whistleblower who set off the Trump-Ukraine impeachment fight showed “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”

A few weeks later, news reports said the whistleblower’s possible bias was that he is a registered Democrat. That was all. Incredulous commentary suggested that Republicans who were pushing the bias talking point were so blinded by their own partisanship that they saw simple registration with the Democratic Party as evidence of wrongdoing.

“Give me a break!” tweeted whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid. “Bias? Seriously?”

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower’s possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year’s election.

“The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” said one person with knowledge of what was said.
“The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates,” said another person with knowledge of what was said.
“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.

In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part, “such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’ particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.”

Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the whistleblower acted out of bias. Indeed, the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower’s purported bias.

Nevertheless, Republicans will want to know more about the origins of the whistleblower complaint, especially given the unorthodox use of whistleblower law involved. There is more to learn — like who the Democratic candidate is — before Republicans will say they know enough about what happened.

DHS Facility Attacked With Molotov Cocktail In Florida


Reported by By Ryan Saavedra | @realsaavedra | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.dailywire.com/news/51270/dhs-facility-attacked-molotov-cocktail-florida-ryan-saavedra

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

A woman was arrested on Friday for allegedly attacking a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility in Florida with a Molotov cocktail, which authorities say was intended to harm people.

“The woman walked into the office Friday afternoon and hurled a bottle filled with gasoline and a lit fuse,” Local 10 News reported. “But the fuse disconnected and didn’t ignite … Security officers handcuffed her, and she was taken into custody. The report did not list her name.”

The attack happened at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office about 30 miles north of Miami.

“Today’s attempted attack on one of our USCIS facilities using a Molotov cocktail is another example of the use of violence in place of debate by those who oppose the proper application of our immigration laws,” USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli wrote in a statement. “This is the 2d attack on a DHS facility in 2 months using a Molotov cocktail. Violence has no place in our society. Thankfully, no one was hurt today. We’re grateful to our security guards & the law enforcement officers of FPS who apprehended and arrested the assailant.”

Acts of aggression against immigration authorities have increased in recent months as Democrats and the media have increasingly demonized them as part of their attacks on the Trump administration.

“About two weeks ago in San Antonio, at least one vehicle pulled up to a building that houses offices for ICE and a gunman fired shots through a window, FBI officials said,” Fox News reported. “Another building used by ICE was also fired on.”

In July, a self-described member of the far-left extremist group Antifa attacked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Tacoma, Washington, as he fired a rifle at the facility, lit vehicles on fire, and attempted to detonate a propane tank that he reportedly hoped would burn the facility down.

The suspect echoed rhetoric from socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in his manifesto, falsely claiming that immigrant detention facilities were “concentration camps.”

Day 1 of New Campaign: Biden Chucks Obama Under the Nearest Bus


Commentary By Malachi Bailey | Published April 26, 2019 at 8:56am | Modified April 26, 2019 at 8:57am

Former Vice President Joe Biden finally announced his decision to run for president, and he threw former President Barack Obama under the bus on the first day.

Biden joined the crowded field of 2020 Democrats on Thursday and immediately received praise from Obama, but he stopped short of endorsing his former running mate, according to CNBC.

“President Obama has long said that selecting Joe Biden as his running mate in 2008 was one of the best decisions he ever made,”Obama spokesperson Katie Hill said in a statement.

“He relied on the Vice President’s knowledge, insight, and judgment throughout both campaigns and the entire presidency. The two forged a special bond over the last 10 years and remain close today.”

But Obama didn’t explicitly endorse Biden, and that’s because Biden doesn’t want Obama’s endorsement.

“I asked President Obama not to endorse,” Biden said Thursday. “Whoever wins this nomination should win it on their own merits.”

Obviously, Biden’s claim that he wants to win the race on his own merits is questionable. Any candidate who wants to become the next president would accept an endorsement if it would help his or her cause. Obama is extremely popular among the far left, so it’s confusing why Biden would tell him not to endorse.

However, Obama is not particularly liked outside of far-left circles, which could be the key to understanding why Biden denied a potential endorsement. It seems as if Biden is trying to distance himself from the former president in order to make a broader appeal to the American people.

The options right now for moderate Democrats are pretty slim. Other than Biden, the front-runners are far left, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. Biden will definitely need a way to differentiate himself from his progressive competition, and distancing himself from Obama is a good start to wooing more moderate Democrats. Besides, radical Democrats don’t like Biden anyway. He’s too white, too old and doesn’t have the right gender.

Regardless of Biden’s strategy, it was probably deeply insulting for Obama to have Biden ask him not to endorse his candidacy. Obama’s legacy is stained to the point where his endorsement isn’t even wanted.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from Ohio with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

Reporter Catches Extremely Disturbing Behavior from Linda Sarsour’s Apparent Bodyguard


Reported By Malachi Bailey | Published March 7, 2019 at 1:02pm

Linda Sarsour, a far-left activist and known anti-Semite, turned her bodyguard on a reporter who asked about Israel’s right to exist at Sarsour’s rally for Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar. Sarsour’s rally for Omar, who is known for her anti-Semitic tweets about “hook-nosed Jews,” was held in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Like the freshman congresswoman, Sarsour is notoriously anti-Semitic and known to have ties to radical Islamic groups.

And of course, Sarsour is a supporter of the “one-state solution” in the Middle East, which means the far-left activist wants to get rid of the Jewish state.

Considering Sarsour’s notoriety as founder of the Women’s March movement, known anti-Semitism and outspoken support for Omar, it makes sense why a reporter would confront her about her radical stance on Israel.

“Linda, do you believe the state of Israel has a right to exist?” a reporter asked Sarsour on Wednesday.

“We’ll answer questions later after the press conference,” Sarsour said. “I’ll be happy to answer them.”

The reporter patiently waited until after the press conference, but Sarsour’s apparent bodyguards blocked him from asking questions. As the bodyguards stopped the reporter from confronting Sarsour, he asked, “Why are you guys pushing me here?” The bodyguard repeatedly asked the reporter, “Why are you here?” and brought up anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish money. “Do you work for Israel? How much do you get paid? Do they pay you enough?” the bodyguard angrily asked.

The bodyguard’s comments were eerily similar to the comments made about Jewish “lobbyists” from Omar last month.

This is what the face of the new Democratic Party looks like; a growing portion of Democrats now support radical Islam and have a disdain for Jewish people. And don’t be tricked into thinking it’s only a few radicals on the left. Omar isn’t only supported by Sarsour — the representative also has the backing of her freshman colleague, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ocasio-Cortez, who is immensely popular in far-left circles, made it clear that she isn’t bothered by Omar’s anti-Semitism. Omar and Ocasio-Cortez might not publicly support radicals like Sarsour, but they definitely have the support of radicals, and that’s evidence enough of the representatives’ extremist dog whistling.

Democrats should be concerned because their party is being taken over by a coalition of extreme socialists and radical Islam sympathizers.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from the Midwest with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

The Modern Democratic Party: 2020 Candidate Throws Support Behind ‘Third Gender’ at Federal Level


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published February 17, 2019 at 10:36am

Presidential races never shape up the way you think they’re going to. For instance, at this moment in time back in 2015, we were all talking about how Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were going to be duking it out for the Republican nomination.

That being said, the official wisdom for the Democrat nomination in 2020 is that Joe Biden will be sucking up all the air in the establishment and Bernie Sanders will have solidified the socialist segment of the party, so the key is staking out a position somewhere on the not-quite-socialist identity politics left.

The problem is that’s a crowded market segment. Democrat Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand — all of whom fit in that political niche — have already declared their intentions to run. And then there’s Beto O’Rourke — an insanely rich, insanely privileged white guy the Democrats still seem to believe is an identity politics hero because he livestreams himself skateboarding an awful lot, or something — who will probably end up in the race, too.

How, then, to differentiate one’s brand in such a crowded field?

Elizabeth Warren has called for an ultra-millionaire tax which is probably unconstitutional and a bad idea even if it weren’t.

Kamala Harris seems to be on board for doing something about legalizing marijuana at the national level, telling interviewers, according to Politico, that “it gives a lot of people joy. And we need more joy.”

Cory Booker has been talking about his vegan diet as if it were an actual campaign issue, even though he swears “whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should what eat what they want to eat.”

So, taxing the heck out of the rich is taken. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have both taken plant advocacy off the table, albeit in very different ways. What’s left for Kirsten Gillibrand?

Well, how about endorsing the legal recognition of a third gender classification at the federal level?

“New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a 2020 candidate, endorsed federal implementation of a third gender listing for Americans who identify as non-binary. Speaking at an LGBTQ-focused meet and greet in New Hampshire on Friday, Gillibrand emphatically said ‘yes’ about recognizing ‘X’ as a third gender marker,” CBS News reported.

“Palana Belken, a transgender woman and organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, asked Gillibrand the question and applauded her quick answer.”

The ball’s in your court now, Kamala.

The “X” identification is currently available in a number of states as well as individual cities, but no move has been made to implement it on a federal level.

“Belken said her question originated from the efforts of New Hampshire State Rep. Gerri Cannon, a transgender lawmaker who recently introduced two similar identification bills at the state level to present this third option on birth certificates and driver’s licenses,” CBS News continued.

Cannon believes federal recognition is important because of confusion involving what the “X” means when traveling in other states.

“Right now, especially non-binary people, when they go to one state to another, some state trooper may take a look at a license with an ‘X’ on it and go, ‘What is this?’” Cannon said.

First, let’s state the obvious: There’s not a particularly large body of science that proves identifying as non-binary is in any way biological. While there’s an incredibly small number of individuals who are born with intersex traits, that’s definitely not what this is addressing. Instead, this is mostly about individuals who identify as a sex different from the one they were born — people who claim they’re demigender, third-gender, genderfluid, whatever the case may be. Nobody particularly has to care about this third-gender identification in almost any other aspect of life. When dealing with the government, however, these individuals are either biologically male or female. Putting an X on their driver’s license doesn’t change this very salient fact.

But that isn’t really the point, is it? For the segment of the Democrat field that Sen. Gillibrand finds herself in, the next few months will look increasingly like a leftist political version of “Survivor.”

If all of the aforementioned candidates stay in the race, you’re pretty much guaranteed to see a Biden-Sanders showdown with almost none of these individuals having a shot.

As The Hiill reported Friday, a new poll by the Morning Consult shows that those two men are not only the most popular potential Democratic contenders for 2020 (29 percent of Democrats for Biden, 22 percent for Sanders), but each is backed by the other’s supporters as a second choice. That means they have support that’s both wide and deep.

So, for one of the non-Biden-Sanders candidates to be viable, the others need to get voted off the island. If you want immunity, you need to get yourself noticed, and the best way to do that is conspicuously getting behind something the left will love. Massive taxes! Lettuce! Hippie lettuce! A third gender!

If your pet issue doesn’t catch on, well, the tribe has spoken.

All of this nonsense will either be inconsequential to or deleterious for most of us, mind you. In Gillibrand’s case, I don’t think that individuals who choose to identify as something other than a man or a woman are going to be profoundly validated by seeing an “X” on their driver’s license. In the meantime, we’ll have committed our government to supporting an unscientific-yet-trendy gender movement.

Perhaps most telling is the fact that this idea would have been considered insanely radical just five years ago.

Now we have Gillibrand — arguably the most vanilla of the candidates jockeying to be the not-Biden-not-Sanders torch-bearer — supporting this without a second thought.  In fact, if any Democratic candidates disagreed with this, you can imagine the political firestorm they’d find themselves in. Such is the state of the Democrats in 2019, a party which is more concerned with third genders than the security of the United States.

With all of this posturing, I can’t wait to see what the next few weeks bring.

Kamala Harris livestreaming herself smoking some “joy?” Cory Booker announcing his support for massive kale subsidies, calling it the Very Green New Deal? Beto O’Rourke entering the race and declaring, in a Vermin Supreme-esque move, that he’s going to give everyone a free skateboard? The imagination reels at the possibilities.

Presidential races are unpredictable, of course, and I can’t tell you who the winner will be, but  among the losers will be a) common sense and b) America.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Charlie Daniels Calls Out Leftist Hypocrisy over All-White Wardrobe: Believe All Women, Except Fairfax Accuser


Reported By Malachi Bailey | February 6, 2019 at 12:12pm

Country music legend Charlie Daniels slammed Democratic women for wearing white to Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to show support for women while their party is noticeably silent about a high-profile sexual assault accusation against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

And he didn’t mince words.

“Democrat women are wearing white to the State of the Union address to signify support for ALL women (Except for the one who is accusing Lt Governor Fairfax of sexual harassment),” Daniels tweeted Tuesday night.

Many female Democratic members of Congress, including far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, wore white as a way to show solidarity on “women’s issues,” according to CNN. And while white was the color of the suffragette movement that won the right to vote for women in 1920, Democrats made it clear that the white on Tuesday applied went much further than gaining women the franchise a century ago.

“I’m looking forward to wearing suffragette white to #SOTU next week with all @HouseDemWomen!” Florida Rep. Lois Frankel wrote in a Twitter post last week. “We’ll honor all those who came before us and send a message of solidarity that we’re not going back on our hard-earned rights.”

But as Daniels pointed out, the bold statement of “solidarity” from the white attire contrasted sharply with the same women’s deafening silence regarding the allegation against Fairfax.

Virginia is currently in the midst of a political crisis as Democrats try to distance themselves from Gov. Ralph Northam, who found himself embroiled in two controversies last week. In a radio interview on Jan. 30, Northam hinted at supporting post-birth abortion, a position that disgusted and infuriated members of the pro-life movement.

But Democrats are more angry about a racist photo from Northam’s medical school yearbook from 1984. With Northam’s relationship with Democrats in tatters, the party seemed poised to throw its support behind Fairfax if Northam eventually steps down. Unfortunately for Democrats, the lieutenant governor is currently facing an accusation from a woman who claims he sexually assaulted her at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Fairfax, however, maintains the encounter was consensual. Virginia Democrats have been cautious at best about the accusation.

“The facts here are still being determined. Every individual deserves the opportunity to be heard, and we respect anyone who comes forward to share their story,” the state’s Democratic lawmakers said in a brief statement Tuesday.

“Governor Northam must end this chapter immediately, step down, and let Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax heal Virginia’s wounds and move us forward.”

We still haven’t heard the kind of widespread condemnation Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh received when he faced allegations that were undoubtedly less credible.

Quentin Kidd, director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, told The Washington Post that the silence from Democrats is “deafening.”

“They may be thinking, ‘We don’t want to throw our lieutenant governor under the bus while we’re also trying to throw our governor out of office,’” he said. “Republicans are probably eating all the popcorn they can find right now. It’s quite a show.”

To be clear, Fairfax deserves due process, but that’s not a principle that Democrats care about when Republicans are accused. Democrats are supposed to “believe all women,” but it’s not a good look when they selectively believe women based on politics.

Daniels had a point. For a party that supposedly supports women, Democrats are awfully silent about Fairfax’s troubling accusation.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Malachi Bailey is a writer from the Midwest with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.

Same Day Democrat Pushed Late-Term Abortion Bill, She Also Pushed Bill To Save Caterpillars


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | February 1, 2019 at 10:04am

While Gov. Ralph Northam is the Democrat most closely associated with the controversy regarding the Virginia abortion bill which would allow a child to be killed up until more or less the moment of birth, someone had to come up with the legislation. That someone is Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, who introduced HB 2491, “Abortion; eliminate certain requirements.”

According to the summary, the bill “eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman’s informed written consent be first obtained.

“The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable,” it continues.

“The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.”

That’s some extremely anti-life stuff. However, on the same day, it’s worth pointing out she did introduce a pro-life bill. I mean, provided that you’re a caterpillar.

TRENDING: Watch Tucker Segment Showing Off Walls Around the World that Democrats Actually Support

On Jan. 9 — the same day that the radical abortion bill was introduced — Tran also introduced HB 2495, which “prohibits localities from spraying pesticides intended to suppress an infestation of the fall cankerworm during the period between March 1 and August 1.”

Well, thank God we’re looking out for the cankerworm, a caterpillar which becomes a gypsy moth.

Tran, by the way, has gotten off of social media now that the controversy over her bill has hit; according to The Daily Caller, she deleted her accounts once the abortion bill became a major issue.

The Virginia GOP, meanwhile, had this to say about it:

Do you think the Democratic Party has become the party of abortion?

Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
You’re logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out.
The great irony of this is that even though this contentious bill may have made Tran decide on radio silence, it didn’t actually receive much play in the media until Gov. Northam decided to go above and beyond what she had proposed.

“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable,” Northam said.

“So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”

So  Gov. Northam appears to be proposing infanticide. (Northam’s people insisted the governor wasn’t talking about termination as an option, something that the context doesn’t support.) Tran believes that killing a baby a few minutes before birth is all right but a few minutes after birth would be murderous.

And she believes caterpillars ought to be protected, too. Don’t forget that.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Dems AWOL as Last Week Marked 153 Years Since the GOP Outlawed Slavery Forever


Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 10, 2018 at 9:03am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/dems-awol-last-week-marked-153-years-since-gop-outlawed-slavery-forever/

The Lincoln Memorial

The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. (KSB / Shutterstock)

It’s a fairly short piece of law, too: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” the amendment reads.

It also gives Congress the power to enforce the law.

Now, the traditional anniversary of the end of slavery, at least in the African-American community, is Juneteenth — June 19, the date in 1865 when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger of the Union Army read the Emancipation Proclamation to slaves in Galveston, Texas. However, when the 13th Amendment celebrated its 153rd birthday on Dec. 6, it didn’t get a whole lot of mention. And what definitely didn’t get mentioned is that it wouldn’t exist if Democrats had their way.

As Ourdocuments.gov notes, “The 13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress.

“Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through Congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th Amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.”

Indeed, it had to be ratified before the Southern states rejoined the union. The reason is that the Democrats considered Dixie their own personal fiefdom up until the late 1960s. Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, the KKK, massive resistance, eugenics — all of these things were brought to you by the Democratic Party and vigorously fought by the Republicans.

But, you say, what about the “great switch?” That’s when the Democrats supposedly became the party of racial justice, all put into motion to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Well, yes, about that. The bill couldn’t have passed without Republican support.

Even the U.K. Guardian, of all sources, notes that “80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”

The vote was taken during the “Solid South” era, where almost every elected official below the Mason-Dixon was a Democrat. Only eight out of 102 representatives from the former Confederacy voted for the bill in the House and one of 22 voted for it in the Senate.

Yet, the fact that the South is now pretty solidly Republican always brings a asking from Democrats, who constantly mistake the new South — the product of economic growth and migration — with the old South they provided over for so many years.

They lament the racism they so successfully fomented for years, as if their party played no role in it. They’ve washed their hands clean. As “penance,” they’ve taken on a different form of identity politics which doesn’t involve standing in the schoolhouse door but is every bit as pernicious.

That’s why the 13th Amendment ought to be celebrated a bit more, we think. Not only did it officially end slavery and passed without Democratic support, it had to be passed before the Southern Democrats could rejoin the Union, lest they continue one of the most evil practices in the history of this planet.

The Democrats have always been the party of oppression and identity politics, whether it be Dec. 6, 1865 or Dec. 6, 2018. If only America would remember that. The Democrats would certainly prefer you didn’t.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech. Exercising it there under his given name could put him in danger.

Election Judge Sees Fraud 7 Ft Away. Reports It. Dems Demand She Be Removed: Report


Reported By Kara Pendleton | November 12, 2018 at 3:38am

While “all eyes” are on Florida amidst accusations of potential election fraud, there may have been something fishy going on in St. Clair County, Illinois. According to The Gateway Pundit, this would not be the first time something like this has happened, either.

Peggy A. Hubbard posted a multi-tweet thread explaining what happened in the 2018 midterm elections, noting that she was an election judge. She began describing some of what she witnessed as she watched the polling station.

But that wasn’t all she saw.

Not only is it shocking that anyone would allow this, but it’s also shocking that someone would get in such a state before then going to vote.

Hubbard noted that she also caught a city council member just feet away doing no good. But it was Hubbard taking flack.

She also elaborated further on how she put a stop to what she witnessed. It appears that these actions may have led to the complaints filed against her and her removal as an election judge being sought.

Hubbard has also posted about other problems with the election in her state. These are from 2016.

Hubbard is no stranger to standing up for what she believes in or in being attacked for it. In 2015, she “compared the black community’s reaction to the shooting of Mansur Ball-Bey in North St. Louis outside a crack house with the shooting death of 9 year-old Jamyla Bolden in Ferguson,” according to The Gateway Pundit.

Her video rant went viral. And the typical name-calling ensued, including her being referred to as an “Uncle Tom.”

Service isn’t new to Hubbard, either. She is a veteran who served aboard the USS SAMUEL GOMPERS AD-37.

Hubbard’s Twitter feed is filled with hard-hitting posts about the left and Democrat shenanigans. She has no problem speaking out against the Democrat Plantation” and “Black Lives Matter,” contrary to what blacks in America are expected to do.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Specializing in news, politics and human interest stories, Kara Pendleton has been a professional writer and author since 2002. One of her proudest professional moments was landing an interview that even mainstream media couldn’t get.

GA Sec. of State Office Accuses Dem Party of Trying To Hack Voter System 2 Days Before Election


Reported By Bryan Chai | November 5, 2018 at 11:17am

One of the tightest races for governor in this week’s midterm elections just took another twist, as accusations of hacking voter systems have surfaced in Georgia. But this time, it’s not the Russians or a WikiLeaks operative being accused of hacking the voter system. Much to the chagrin of Democrats, this time it’s the party most likely to whine about voter hacking that has been accused of that very same thing.

According to WSB-TV, the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office is investigating a failed attempt to hack the state’s voter registration system. And just to clear any confusion or hoax narratives, the office is pointing its finger directly at Democrats.

“While we cannot comment on the specifics of an ongoing investigation, I can confirm that the Democratic Party of Georgia is under investigation for possible cyber crimes,” said Candice Broce, press secretary for the secretary of state’s office, in a statement on Sunday.

However, as with most things Democrats have attempted to do in recent years, the clandestine hacking seems to have failed spectacularly.

“We can also confirm that no personal data was breached and our system remains secure,” Broce added.

Complicating the story even more is that Georgia’s current secretary of state, the man in charge of investigating the Democratic Party, is Brian Kemp, the Republican candidate for governor. Kemp’s office issued a statement explaining the investigation, according to WSB-TV.

“We opened an investigation into the Democratic Party of Georgia after receiving information from our legal team about failed efforts to breach the online voter registration system and My Voter Page. We are working with our private sector vendors and investigators to review data logs. We have contacted our federal partners and formally requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate these possible cyber crimes. The Secretary of State’s office will release more information as it becomes available.”

To the surprise of nobody, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (yes, the same one supported by Oprah Winfrey) has denied any involvement in the alleged hacking.

Just as unsurprising, Abrams tried to deflect blame for her party’s alleged misconduct and instead attacked Republicans.

“(Republican governor candidate Brian Kemp) is trying to rile up his base by misleading voters yet again,” Abrams said. “This is also someone who has a strong habit of having hackable systems. And the problem is, Democrats did nothing wrong. What is happening is that he, once again, is overseeing a vulnerable system and is blaming someone for his mistakes.”

Kemp, who has even been accused of being a “racist” for wanting voters to have identification, fired back through his communications director with a blistering statement of his own.

“The Democratic Party of Georgia will stop at nothing to regain relevance and power in our state,” said the statement said. “They lied about Georgia’s ‘pending’ voter list, made up stories about missing absentee ballot requests, and spread misinformation about our state’s voting machines. Every time, their ridiculous claims were undermined by the truth.”

You know what would undermine the Democrats even more? Republicans getting out and voting on Tuesday. That would work in Georgia, and it needs to work everywhere else in America, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

West Virginia’s Democratic governor will flip to Republican Party


Reported

West Virginia’s Democratic governor will flip to Republican Party

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, a Democrat, will announce he is flipping to the GOP at a rally with President Trump on Thursday.

A senior Republican operative confirmed Justice’s plans to switch parties to The Hill.
Justice, a coal magnate and the wealthiest man in West Virginia, first won office last year. Before announcing his candidacy, he was wooed by both Democrats and Republicans. Ultimately, he opted to run as a Democrat.
Justice’s party switch is a slap in the face to the Democratic Governors Association, which spent more than $1 million to try to get Justice elected in 2016. The Republican Governors Association spent $3.7 million backing his GOP rival.
ADVERTISEMENT

Trump took 68 percent of the vote in West Virginia in 2016, beating Hillary  by 41 points. Justice, who faced the Republican state Senate president in November, won office with 49 percent of the vote.

Justice, the only billionaire in West Virginia, is the chief executive officer of dozens of companies, many in the coal industry. He also owns the Greenbrier, a luxury resort in the Allegheny Mountains that once served as a bunker meant to help the U.S. government survive a nuclear attack.

The New York Times first reported Justice’s decision to flip parties.
Trump seemed to tease the announcement earlier Thursday during an event spotlighting telehealth efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

“We’re going to have a very big announcement, which will be very exciting I think for the media and everyone else,” Trump said. “I believe I’ll be making it in West Virginia, so that will be very exciting.”

Trump will fly to Huntington, W.Va., late Thursday for a rally at the Big Sandy Superstore Arena. It is his second visit to West Virginia in a little more than a week, following a speech to a Boy Scouts Jamboree.

That event took place at the James C. Justice National Scout Camp, a facility named for the governor.

-This story was updated at 4:04 p.m.

Democrats May Be On The Verge Of Becoming A ‘Permanent Minority’ Party


waving flagAuthored by Photo of Stewart LawrenceStewart Lawrence | Contributor | 2:20 PM 02/06/2017

Remember when Democrats predicted the imminent decline of the GOP? The theory was that Republicans were so out of touch with women and ethnic minorities that they would soon be relegated to the status of a “permanent minority” — supported only by Southern white men and incapable of recapturing the White House.

Donald Trump’s victory has put an end to this fantasy. Now it’s the Democrats who are facing their own “doomsday” scenario.

A recent analysis conducted by Third Way — a self-described “centrist” think tank — argues that Democrats are evolving into a “coastal” party. They have strong bases in California, New York and Massachusetts but are slowly ceding the rest of the country to Republicans.

Third Way compared 2016 election results in the two areas and found an astounding asymmetry:

In California, New York and Massachusetts, home to roughly 24 million voters, voters chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a large margin, 65% to 35%.

But in the remaining 47 states, home to 105 million voters, voters broke for Trump by a decisive 52% to 48% margin.

The geographic concentration of the pro-Hillary vote is one reason Clinton’s supposed popular vote “victory” rings so hollow. Clinton ran up the score in a liberal state like California, where she bested Trump by some 4.3 million votes. But that single-state advantage is simply not reflective of the broader national pattern, which favored Trump, Third Way found.

Recent voting patterns in Congress point to another disastrous trend for Democrats: They are fast becoming a “two-region” party. Democrats have a 3-1 lead over the GOP in California, New York and Massachusetts and a 3-1 lead over Republicans in the Pacific Northwest and the Mid-Atlantic (also known as the “Acela Corridor”). However, those regions account for less than 20% of the total numbers of House members.

By contrast, if you focus on the American South, the Heartland, and the Southwest — about 80% of the country — the GOP leads Democrats by more than 2-1. Overall, that translates into a decisive GOP advantage in the House of Representatives — one that is not likely to shift anytime soon.

There are other powerful signs that the Democrats are losing their grip on power.

The vast majority of state legislatures — 32, a record — are in GOP hands, as are a majority of the state houses. And Democrats face enormous challenges in the U.S. Senate in 2018 because they must defend at least 10 seats in states that Trump won in 2016 — while the GOP occupies virtually none that are considered vulnerable to reversal.

One bellwether contest will be the battle of liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren for re-election in Massachusetts. A recent statewide poll found that 46% of voters would support someone else for her seat — her weakest showing yet.Happy Happy Joy Joy

Other vulnerable Senate Democrats include party stalwarts like North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, Missouri’s Claire MCCaskill, Montana’s Jon Tester, and even Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, in Virginia. One top Democratic strategist recently told Politico Magazine“It’s going to be a disaster.”

Another major quandary for Democrats is their national leadership. Without Obama at the helm, the party has fallen prey to fierce ideological, gender and ethnic divisions. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) managed to impose herself as party leader yet again, beating back a powerful challenge from Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), who blamed Pelosi and her ardent followers, many of them dependent on her fundraising support, for leading Democrats astray.

Since then, the party has found itself increasingly divided over the nomination of Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) to become Democratic National Committee chair. Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and more recently, former vice-president Joe Biden have joined the fray, but each supports a different candidate, further complicating the dispute. It’s becoming a race to the bottom. Ellison and his emerging rival Tom Perez, Obama’s former labor secretary, are virtual unknowns outside the party. Sanders and Biden, who might have fared better against Trump than Clinton, are too old to lead the Democrats moving forward. Warren herself will be 71 in 2024.

The party could well find itself without a viable White House challenger to Trump in 2020.Happy Happy Joy Joy

And then there’s the Supreme Court. Trump has just announced his candidate to replace Judge Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch. A staunch conservative who once clerked for Anthony Kennedy, the leading “swing” vote on the Court, he’s hard to pigeon-hole politically. And despite threats to block Gorsuch, the Democrats have become victims of their own hubris. Under Obama, they altered the rules so that only 51 Senate votes were needed to confirm a judicial appointee. The Republicans now have 52, making Gorsuch a shoo-in.

For the GOP, regaining a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court would amount to a political crown jewel: The party will dominate every branch and level of government for the first time in modern history. For Democrats, who’ve grown accustomed to having their way in national politics, it’s like staring into the abyss.Happy Happy Joy Joy

Democrats Unify Around Shutting Down White People


waving flagAuthored by Photo of Scott Greer Scott Greer | Deputy Editor | 11:21 AM 01/25/2017

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/democrats-unify-around-shutting-down-white-people/#ixzz4Wp7XN7ch

A Democratic National Committee candidate forum showed a party united in one theme: white people need to shut up. A white female chair hopeful ventured forth to state her very job was to keep to her fellow Caucasians in their proper place at the Monday night event.

“My job is to shut other white people down when they want to say, ‘oh, no, I’m not prejudiced; I’m a Democrat; I’m accepting,’” Sally Boynton Brown, Idaho Democratic Committee chairwoman and DNC chair candidate, declared. (RELATED: White Candidate For DNC Chair Says Her Job Will Be ‘To Shut Other White People Down’)

She further said that she would shut white people down when they try to interrupt minorities, make sure that they “get” their white privilege and encourage minorities to school Caucasians on all the important topics.Socialism alert

These anti-white comments appear remarkable to come from someone who hopes to lead a major political party — who also happens to be white herself. There’s still a lot of white people in America, and you need a substantial number of them to win elections. So adopting as your party message, “shut up and check your white privilege!” seems pretty counter-productive.

Then again, it’s par for the course for the modern Democratic Party. Other candidates for the chair position nodded along with Brown’s statements at the forum, showing their clear approval for what she was saying. The leading candidate for to be the next leader of the DNC is Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, who once proposed for a black ethno-state to be carved out of America. The reason for this black nationalist dream was to get away from all those bad white people. (RELATED: Keith Ellison Once Proposed Making A Separate Country For Blacks) Ellison also once said the Constitution is evidence of “a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”What did you say 07.jpg

Shockingly, these comments have hardly hurt the Minnesota congressman among his fellow Democrats. When confronted by The Daily Caller on his comments, several Democratic lawmakers found nothing “objectionable” in Ellison’s black nationalist past. (RELATED: Black Congressmen Refuse To Condemn Ellison’s Past Proposal For A ‘Black State’)

The 2016 Democratic primary — which pitted two elderly whites against each other — at times resembled a competition as to who could bash Caucasians and check their privilege the most. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders admitted that they had white privilege and said that their fellow whites should own up to that trait.

Clinton and Sanders placed the blame for the woes of minority communities on systemic racism — the idea that America’s institutions are set up to favor whites and disenfranchise non-whites. They also lashed out at Donald Trump’s “white supremacy” and preyed upon the fears of minority voters that the man who won the election would take away their rights if he gained power. While she was the party’s nominee, Clinton made similar (though not as egregious) comments to Brown’s groveling.

“I will call for white people, like myself, to put ourselves in the shoes of those African-American families, who fear every time their children go somewhere, who have to have the talk about … how to really protect themselves, when they are the ones who should be expecting protection from encounters with the police,” Clinton stated during a July 2016 CNN interview. “I’m going to be talking to white people. I think we are the ones who have to start listening to the legitimate cries that are coming from our African-American fellow citizens, and we have so much more to be done, and we have got to get about the business of doing it.” what-did-you-say-02

The then-presidential candidate made those comments in response to a black nationalist murdering five police officers in Dallas, Texas. Even when whites are the victims of racially-motivated crimes, they are somehow still responsible for them, according to the wisdom of the new Democratic elite.More Evidence

This condescending form of identity politics is obviously not going to help Democrats win back Rust Belt voters who pulled the lever for Trump. Moreover, it could potentially cause deep divisions within their own base. For instance, during the Women’s March last weekend, one viral image showed a major potential conflict that could burst out into the open.

Don’t forget: white women voted for Trump read the sign of a not-too pleased black woman while smiling white females took selfies of themselves in pussy hats in the background. It’s clear those white women didn’t vote for Trump, but they have to be lectured about it anyway due to their race, according to the woman who held the sign.

“I don’t think it’s a matter of white women becoming interested in our issues; I need them to recognize they are implicit or complicit benefactors of systems like white supremacy and patriarchy—and that’s a problem,” Angela Peoples, the sign holder, told The Root.What did you say 05.jpg

Nobody likes to be belittled for something they didn’t do and have no control over. How the mostly white women marchers will feel about being told to go to the back of the Democratic bus is yet to be determined, but it’s likely some will not be too happy with that idea.

If one thing is clear from recent events, it’s that the Democratic Party’s one unifying message is telling white people to shut up — the opinions of non-whites matter more than yours.

Leftist monster race

Schumer: Dems Will Work With Trump Only ‘If He Moves Completely In Our Direction’ [VIDEO]


waving flagAuthored by Derek Hunter / Contributor / 01/04/2017

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/04/schumer-dems-will-work-with-trump-only-if-he-moves-completely-in-our-direction-video/

when-tolerance-becomes-a-one-way-street

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats would work with President-elect Donald Trump only if he “moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues.”

“The only way we’re going to work with him is if he moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues,” Schumer told CNN Tuesday. “90-95 percent of the time we’ll be holding his feet to the fire and holding him accountable.”

Schumer added, “But we’re Democrats. We’re not just going to oppose things to oppose them.”more-words

His statement stands in contrast to his Senate floor speech when he said Democrats would work with Trump “if the president-elect proposes legislation on issues like infrastructure and trade and closing the carried interest loophole, for instance, we’ll work in good faith to perfect and potentially enact it.”

Ann Coulter Letter: Trump: The Great Unifier


waving flag
Commentary by  Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2016/08/24/trump-the-great-unifier/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Trump: The Great Unifier

The modern Democratic Party is obsessed with voting blocs they call “Latinos,” “Hispanics” and the “blacks and browns.”

But apart from ethnic pimps trying to get money from the government, no authentic person calls himself a “Hispanic.” They’re “Portuguese,” “Cuban” or “Colombian” — and they don’t think of themselves as “brown.” 

Everybody else is from a country.

It’s an insult to imagine that recent immigrants are all in a simmering rage at Trump’s affront to the brown masses. Salvadorans and Guatemalans resent having to pretend they’re Mexican — much less Mexican illegal immigrant rapists.

Mexico is heaving Hondurans out of their country. El Salvador and Honduras went to war over a soccer game. But we’re supposed to imagine that the moment they cross the Rio Grande, they all become blood brothers.

The only people who believe in something called “Hispanics” are white liberals and the RNC. The condescending class is not happy unless they are infantilizing minorities.

Republicans B.T. (Before Trump) worked overtime to reinforce these artificial group identities as one big happy (and aggrieved) family, constantly babbling about reaching out to — as Rand Paul says — “blacks and browns.”

Has he heard of Compton? The city memorialized in the song “Straight Outta Compton,” by the hip-hop group N.W.A. (modern translation: African-Americans With Attitude), is now majority Mexican.

This dramatic transformation didn’t happen because “blacks and browns” came together in peace and harmony in our vibrant melting pot, but because Mexicans moved in and decided they wanted blacks out, which they accomplished with violent racist attacks and drive-by shootings.

Unlike white Americans, Mexicans are unguiltable.

Nearly 20 years ago, both black and Hispanic Americans begged Congress to do something about illegal immigration. Rich white people see illegal immigrants only as their maids. Blacks and Hispanics live in their neighborhoods.

Terry Anderson, a black radio talk show host from South Central Los Angeles, told a U.S. House subcommittee on immigration in 1999 how illegal immigration had changed his predominantly black community. (That was then; today South Central is 99 percent Mexican.) He said all anyone ever hears about is the “poor, poor immigrant,” and the immigrant worker, “who works harder than the black person works and he will take the job that nobody else takes.”

But, Anderson said: “You never hear that every time that illegal alien comes here, he displaces somebody else ….

“You never hear about all the race-based organizations that step forth and advocate for the illegal alien. You have MALDEF, MEChA, LULAC, La Raza and others who are exclusive only to one race of people and advocate for those people only …

“(You) will never hear from these people about the 17-year-old black kid in my neighborhood who went to McDonald’s and was told you can’t work here because you don’t speak Spanish.”

In response to Anderson’s claim that only Spanish-speakers could get jobs at McDonald’s, Democratic congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee tried to put the onus entirely on McDonald’s. Anderson wasn’t having any of it.

Every time Rep. Lee tried to say the responsibility belonged to corporate America, Anderson responded with, “And to the illegal alien who takes the job. Yes, ma’am.”

Would any politician ever blame the foreign law-breakers themselves? That’s a rhetorical question — the answer is “no.” Until Trump.

A Latina witness, Angie Morfin from Salinas, California, told the committee that illegals were bringing “crime, gangs and an overloaded social safety net” and that “the Latino-American citizens of our community want illegals removed.” She blamed Reagan’s amnesty for the rise of Mexican gangs in the U.S., saying, “You gave them a right.”

Republicans obsessed with winning the “Hispanic vote” act as if these Hispanics don’t exist. The only Hispanics in their circle of concern are those who broke into our country illegally.

By constantly groveling to ethnic activists, the GOP simply confirmed the idea that people should see themselves as ethnic identity groups — and ought to be bloc-voting for whichever party offers their team the most goodies.

Their argument to Hispanics was: We’ll give you everything the Democrats are offering, but not as much. Paul Ryan’s “opportunity society!” was not cutting it.

Democrats must go home and laugh themselves silly at the GOP’s incompetence at sucking up to minorities. We buffaloed them out of talking about immigration once again!

Instead of cooing at immigrants and trying to lick their necks, Trump treats them like Americans.

They like America! They came here. And they’d like good-paying jobs without the endless competition of cheap foreign labor.

Trump’s plan to stop job-killing trade deals, H1-B workers replacing American workers, and the dump of millions of low-skilled workers on the country has made him the great unifier!

The media’s only move is to quadruple down on the phony “racism” charges. But to accuse Trump of “racism” because he wants to protect jobs for our own poor, working-class and native-born is like squeezing a balloon. His popularity with the employers of nannies and diversity coordinators may be in the dumps, but oh my gosh — look at what’s happening at the other end! It looks like Americans want jobs!

Let Hillary produce studies showing that it’s much better for African-Americans to have to compete with Mexicans. Yes, that’ll work!

No one really enjoys thinking of himself as a victim. Trump sees Americans as winners and he doesn’t care if you’re black, white, gay or a disabled Eskimo. He’ll bring back jobs for everyone — except the plutocrats outsourcing manufacturing and importing cheap labor while making the rest of us subsidize their foreign workforces.

Because of his positions on immigration, Trump has a sneaky appeal to everybody. For more on how great America is going to be under our next president, get In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!, out this week.

illegalalienvoters-300x300 Still True Today All about the vote or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

U.N. Makes Move to Create Massive Tax Agency: This Will DESTROY Our Constitution


waving flagAuthored by Michael Becker — August 3, 2015

 UN TAXES

muslim-obamaBarack Obama is a globalist of the first order and his Democratic Party is right there with him. They love the UN. They love all things European. And most of all they hate America and all things American. Obama and his stooges have done their very best over the past seven years to destroy American influence in the world, to destroy free markets and capitalism. If a Democrat is elected next year, we may actually see the Progressive dream of One World Government and it will be headquartered out of the UN.

Only slightly off topic, Barack Obama wants to head the UNDelusional

Taxes are always a big topic. Democrats want to raise them, most Republicans want to lower them. The whole theory of governing of the Democratic Party is that the rich need to be taxed more to “help” the poor. On that note, the biggest threat to your tax bill isn’t Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. It’s Barack Obama’s United Nations.

Third World dictators and tax-funded “civil society” groups have stepped up their demands for a United Nations tax authority — supposedly to ensure that they all get their “fair share” of the loot from Western taxpayers and businesses. The coalition to create the proposed UN tax regime includes more than 130 national governments and dictatorships involved in the G77, which recently demanded a “New World Order to Live Well.”

The bottom line is simple. The rest of the world wants American tax dollars. In the name of ‘fairness.”

You might be thinking that it won’t effect you because they’ll just “go after the rich.” You’re half right. They are going to go after the rich. The “Evil One-Percent.” Your problem is, you don’t know who the “Evil One-Percent” is.

In order to reach that top 1 percent status, you need to earn around $47,500 per year. That’s about the average per capita income in the United States …

If you only earn $25,000 per year, you’re in the top 10 percent. Even if you earn the official poverty line in the United States — $11,344 (for 2010) — you’re in the top 13 percent of all income earners, give or take a percentage point.

Are you getting the idea? I’ll bet you didn’t realize that YOU are the Evil One-Percent! And the UN wants your money. After all, people are starving in Zimbabwe. And YOU have to do something about it. Why, just think about how many people in the world don’t have access to health care. ObamaCare for the World! And you get to pay for it.

Globalist are anxious to use the UN Treaty to make America subservient to the United Nations. We could get rid of the Congress (some days that’s an attractive idea) and the US court system could be folded into the World Court.

If only the UN had an American Secretary-General who believed in One World government.

If only …

Delusional Arrrogant Delusional etc Obama-Socialism obama-marxism ObamaWorld-300x204 king-obama3 freedom combo 2

AMAZING! DNC Chair STUMPED – Can’t Explain Difference Between Democrat Party and Socialism (VIDEO)


wasserman schultz socialismThings got very awkward today when Chris Matthews asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference was between the modern Democratic Party and Socialism.

We haven’t seen that dazed look since Rachel Dolezal was busted as a fraud.

Wasserman Schultz was speechless. Completely stumped.  Couldn’t answer.  Then changed the subject.

Because we all know there is no difference between today’s Democrat Party and the radical Socialists in Venezuela or Argentina.

THIS MAY BE THE MOST REVEALING VIDEO YOU WATCH THIS YEAR—

Chris Matthews: Will Sanders speak at the Democrat convention, win or lose? Do you want to have him up there as a Socialist representing the Democratic Party?… You want him up there? You want him on the floor of the convention?

Debbie Wasserman Schulz: Bernie Sanders has been a good Democrat. He caucuses with the Democrats.

Matthews: Should he speak? Speak at prime-time?

Wasserman Schultz: Of course he should speak.

Matthews: In prime-time with everybody watching? (laughing)

Wasserman Schultz: Of course Bernie Sanders should speak…

Matthews: What’s the difference between the Democratic Party and Socialist?

Wasserman Schultz: (Speechless) (Laugh)

Matthews: I used to think there’s a big difference. What do you think it is?

Wasserman Schultz: Wuh… The difference between…

Matthews: Like Democrat Hillary Clinton and Socialist Bernie Sanders?… Well what’s the big difference between the Democrat Party and Socialist. You’re chairman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a Socialist?…

Wasserman Schultz: (She won’t answer) The relevant debate we will be having over the course of this campaign is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.More Evidence

Wow!
Even the DNC Chair knows there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Democratic Party and Socialism.
Via News Alert:

dnc chair

 

 

Connecticut Dems dump Thomas Jefferson, urge rest of U.S. to follow suit


Keys taken
jefferson

The Connecticut Democratic Party has officially dumped both Thomas Jefferson’s and Andrew Jackson’s names from its annual fundraising dinner due to their ties to slavery. The move was made in response to demands from the state’s chapter of the NAACP.

Each fall, the state party holds a Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner to raise money for the party. Similar Jefferson-Jackson dinners are held by Democrats around the country (the Bailey name is peculiar to Connecticut).

But now the first two names are gone, voted out unanimously by the party’s state board in just a few minutes with almost no discussion, according to the Hartford Courant.

“As members of the Democratic Party, we are proud of our history as the party of inclusion. Democrats have led the way on civil rights, LGBT equality and equal rights for women,” the board’s resolution declared. “It is only fitting that the name of the party’s most visible annual event reflects our dedication to diversity and forward-looking vision.”Picture4

A replacement name will be chosen later.

Jefferson is well-known to most Americans for writing the Declaration of Independence, serving as America’s third president, championing religious freedom, and being one of the nation’s leading intellectuals in its early years. He was also a key figure in the genesis of the Democratic-Republican party, which evolved into the modern Democratic Party, so throughout history Democrats have been happy to claim him as their own.More Evidence

Now, though, Democrats are souring on Jefferson due to his position as a slaveholder, as well as the belief that he fathered children with slave Sally Hemmings.

Andrew Jackson is even more vilified today. While his presidency was a key point in the rise of the “common man” as a major force in American politics, Jackson was also a slaveholder, and his policies toward American Indians have been characterized by some as genocidal.

Calls to change the name grew after the massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina last month.

Party chairman Nick Balletto said he hoped the rest of the country would join Connecticut in rejecting Jefferson’s legacy.

“I wasn’t looking to be a trailblazer or set off a trend that’s going to affect the rest of the country,” Balletto told the Connecticut Post. “Hopefully, they’ll follow suit when they see it’s the right thing to do.” Balletto added that the name simply had to go, because some people were offended by it. “When something offends someone, it’s beyond being politically correct,” Balletto said. “It just causes a need for change.” “You can’t change history, but you don’t have to honor it.”cause of death

This report, by Blake Neff, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

freedom combo 2

Mark Steyn: The Confederate flag is a Democratic problem


waving flagPosted by    Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:30am | 6/25/2015 – 8:30am

“The Democratic party has never come to terms with the evil of its past”

Confederate Flag racist mark stein sean hannity republican the confederate flag is a democrat problem

History has a way of bastardizing politically expedient talking points. For example, the Republican party’s long-standing though not widely reported history of standing athwart the institution of slavery. As it turns out in 1987, then Governor Clinton boasted that the blue star on the Arkansas State flag was an homage to the Confederacy. Oops. Guess the New York Times forgot about that.inconvenient truth

Mark Steyn joined Sean Hannity Wednesday to discuss the Confederate flag issue. “The idea that Republicans can have the Confederate flag hung around their necks is ridiculous, it’s a Democrat flag. The states that seceded during the Civil War were all Democrat states. That’s their flag.  The slave states were democrat states, the racist states until the 1960s were Democrat states. The Democratic party was the largest and most powerful institution supporting slavery in the English speaking world, and it is the only one that has survived to the twenty-first century.”

flag

“It’s their flag,” Steyn continued. “Hillary Clinton had it campaign bumper stickers when she ran for president in 2008. You mentioned Robert C. Byrd, Bill Clinton was doing Klu Klux Klan jokes at Robert C. Byrd’s funeral!”f698a-cinjy1luyaaut8v 25683-cino0cauyaaqhcc-jpg-large

Despite their racist past, the Democratic party has thrived for over 150 years, there’s simply nothing like it in the planet, Steyn noted. “People talk about apartheid Africa, the national party came to power in 1948 and they were gone 45 years later, that’s how long they lasted and they’re nothing now.”

“The Democratic party has never come to terms with the evil of its past,” said Steyn.

While I refuse to argue the Confederate flag should be a state symbol (it should not), the fact that Democrats chose to exploit mental illness and tragedy to pretend the entire South (which happens to be solidly Republican) is racist, is perfectly illustrative of egregious historical ignorance. Epidemic of racism

Thank GOD I’m not a Democrat. How embarrassing that must be.confused

freedom combo 2

ALERT: America has already taken in one-fourth of Mexico’s entire population!


waving flagWritten by Ann Coulter, May 27, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-05-27.html

070312-A-6950H-002:

I finally found a Mexican willing to do a job no American will do! I have an explosive book on the No. 1 issue in the country coming out next week, I’ve already written 10 New York Times best-sellers — I’d be on a postage stamp if I were a liberal — but can’t get an interview on ABC, NBC or CBS. Only Mexican-born Jorge Ramos would interview me on his Fusion network. Yay, Jorge! 

After a spellbinding interview, Ramos ended by asking this excellent question — which I had suggested myself for all authors, most of whom write very boring books, harming the marketability of my own books: “Is there anything in your book that isn’t already generally known?” 

My soon-to-be-released book, ,is jam-packed with facts you didn’t already know. Don’t even think of using it as a coaster, like those other books.
These are just a few: 

— Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was expressly designed to change the demographics of our country to be poorer and more inclined to vote Democratic. 

— It worked! Post-1970 immigrants vote 8-2 for the Democrats. 

— Citing this dramatic shift in the Democratic Party’s fortunes, Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy called the 1965 Immigration Act “the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.” 

— Immigrants admitted before 1970 made more money, bought more houses and were more educated than Americans. The post-Kennedy immigrants are astronomically less-educated, poorer and more likely to be on welfare than the native population. 

— With no welfare state to support them, about a third of pre-1965 Act immigrants returned to the places they came from. British and Jewish immigrants were the least likely to go home — less than 10 percent did. 

— Although America is admitting more immigrants, they are coming from fewer countries than they did before 1970. On liberals’ own terms, the country is becoming less “diverse,” but a lot poorer and a lot more Latin.

 — America has already taken in one-fourth of Mexico’s entire population. Picture5
obama-border-is-open-378x257 — In 1970, there were almost no Nigerian immigrants in the United States. Our country is now home to more Nigerians than any country in the world except Nigeria. 

— America takes more immigrants from Nigeria than from England. 

The government refuses to tell us how many prisoners in the United States are immigrants. That information is not available anywhere. But the ancillary facts suggest that the number is astronomical. 

There are more foreign inmates in New York state prisons from Mexico than from the entire continent of Europe

— Hispanics are less likely to be in the military than either whites or blacks, and a majority of Hispanic troops are women. On the other hand, Hispanics are overrepresented in U.S. Prisons. homeless

In Denmark, actual Danes come in tenth in criminals’ nationality, after Moroccans, Lebanese, Yugoslavians, Somalis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Turks, Iraqis and Vietnamese. America are you paying attention — At least 15 percent of all births in Peru and Argentina are to girls between the ages of 10 and 15. In the U.S., only 2 percent of births are to girls that young, and those are mostly Hispanics, who are seven times more likely to give birth at that age than white girls are. 

Sex with girls as young as 12 years old is legal in 31 of the 32 states of Mexico. 

— In all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel combined, there have been eight reported births to girls aged 10 or younger. Seven of the eight were impregnated by immigrants. 

— In some areas of America, law enforcement authorities have given up on prosecuting statutory rape cases against Mexican men in their 30s who impregnate 12- and 13-year-old girls, after repeatedly encountering parents who view their little girls’ pregnancies as a “blessing.” 

— The same North Carolina newspapers that gave flood-the-zone coverage to a rape that never happened at a Duke lacrosse party completely ignore real rapes happening right under their noses, being committed against children by immigrants providing cheap labor to the state’s farming and meat-packing industries. 

— Since 2004, Mexicans have beheaded at least a half-dozen people in the United States. 

— Mexican drug cartels — not ISIS — pioneered the practice of posting videotaped beheadings online. 

— An alleged “ISIS” beheading video making the rounds in 2014 was actually a Mexican beheading video from 2010. 

— Post-1970 immigrants have re-introduced slavery to America. Indian immigrant Lakireddy Bali Reddy, for example, used the H1-B visa program, allegedly for “high-tech workers,” to bring in 12-year-old girls he had bought from their parents for sex.

— The above story was missed by the San Francisco Chronicle. It was broken by a high school journalism class. 

The ACLU took Reddy’s side. 

— We’re still letting in Hmong immigrants as a reward for their help with the ill-fated Vietnam War, which ended 40 years ago. 

— Between 2000 and 2005, nearly 100 Hmong men were charged with rape or forced prostitution of girls in Minneapolis-St Paul, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The vast majority of the victims were 15 years old or younger. A quarter of the victims were not Hmong. 

— Proponents of the 1965 immigration bill swore up and down that it would not alter this country’s demographic mix. In fact, Kennedy’s immigration policy has brought about the greatest demographic shift of any nation in world history. 

— In 1980, Reagan won the biggest electoral landslide in history against an incumbent president, Jimmy Carter. Without the last 40 years of immigration, in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did. He got more of the “Reagan coalition” than Reagan did. Only Reason
 — If Romney had won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. If he’d gotten just 4 percent more of the white vote, he would have won.

Adios, America! In bookstores next Monday, June 1.

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICKfreedom combo 2

Democrats’ ‘Progressive Agenda’ is Outright Communism


waving flagPosted by

URL Of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#dtl4wsSBLblhYjRB.

It must be so close they can taste it. 

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States. With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.

Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections. But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions. Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.

Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.

The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.

All the hallmarks are there:

  • hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?);
  • national paid family and sick leave;
  • pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize;
  • “immigration reform” to organize illegals;
  • refinance student debt;
  • expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs;
  • increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.Cloward Piven

De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”more evidence

Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”

Buzzword alert.

The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it. 

  • The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence.
  • Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them. **Please see related historical record regarding this point**

To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights. If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive. Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.

It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office. And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.

Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party. The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years. De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.

The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street. Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC. Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.

You start to see how the pieces fit together? Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

waving flag**Related Historical Context**

Not Yours To Give

Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)

“Money with [Congressmen] is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Introductory note by Peter Kershaw:

Davy Crockett served four terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1835. In 1835 he joined the Whig Party and ran a failed attempt for the Presidency. Immediately thereafter he departed his native Tennessee for Texas to secure the independence of the “Texicans.” He lost his life at the battle of the Alamo and forever secured his legendary status in history as “king of the wild frontier.” The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.

…Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.’

“Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” He took his seat. Nobody replied.

The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day. Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: “I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.” I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into the hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.’

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.’ “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. “So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.’

“As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied: “‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those fortunate beings called candidates, and . . . .’

“‘ Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager (decisive argument: a decisive blow or argument)…. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.’

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. … But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

 “‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’ “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: “‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury; and, I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

“‘If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.’

“‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’ “I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in this district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:’

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’ “The farmer laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than defeating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday seek. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

 “‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted that day in gentlemanly friendship and amity.’ “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met that man. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, incorruptible integrity, and, for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.’

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with. In fact I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifest before.’

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached the home of Mr. Bunce, and under ordinary circumstances should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.’

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.’

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.’ “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand me there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.’

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: “‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.’

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but my friend Horatio Bunce is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said: “‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’ “Now, sir,’ concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.’

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.’

“Yet not one of those Congressmen responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

OARLogo Picture6

Obamacare exchange sends couple voter registration form pre-marked as Democrat


http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/30/couple-receives-voter-registration-form-pre-marked-democratic-obamacare-exchange/#tusSJmJcHkdxurQi.99

By Howard Portnoy on March 30, 2014 at 10:04 am

Last October, LU staff reported that Obamacare exchanges offered visitors an option to register to vote. Brian Cook, a spokesman for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was quoted as saying the exchanges were required to include that option under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

But does that law also empower the exchanges to automatically register enrollees and, if so, as Democrats? That’s what happened to a La Mesa, Calif., couple. ABC News 10 reports that the couple, who asked not to be identified, received an envelope from Covered California, the state’s Obamacare exchange. Inside was a registration card pre-marked with an “x” in the box next to Democratic Party.

The husband told reporters:

I’m an old guy and I never would have noticed it, except I have an accountant that notices every dot and dash on a piece of paper as a wife.

SEE NEWS REPORT BELOW:

Voter

Covered California began mailing out voter registration cards to all enrollees last week after being threatened with a lawsuit by the League of Women Voters, Young Invincibles, other pro-Obamacare voting rights groups, and the ACLU. Their argument, presented in a 6-page letter mailed to Debra Bowen, the California Secretary of State, noted an “obligation on the part of public assistance agencies to provide voter registration services.” Their petition, which cited Section 7 of the NVRA, was based rather loosely on that provision, which reads:

Section 7 of the Act requires states to offer voter registration opportunities at all offices that provide public assistance and all offices that provide state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities. Each applicant for any of these services, renewal of services, or address changes must be provided with a voter registration form of a declination form as well as assistance in completing the form and forwarding the completed application to the appropriate state or local election official. [Emphasis added]

Whether a website can reasonably be called an “office” is open to debate. What is not debatable is the illegality of selecting a party affiliation for private citizens.

There are other problems, noted by the couple:

[T]here’s an awful lot of people who are going to get this that are already registered and they don’t need to. I can see that, but I can’t see putting x on the form before it’s given to me in a little bitty box that nobody’s really going to notice.

Anne Gonzales, a spokeswoman for Covered California, told reporters that the application forms come directly from the Secretary of State’s office, with no fields pre-marked, adding that the couple should contact the Secretary of State, which “takes these violations of election law extremely seriously.” The couple claims they did reach out to the Secretary of State’s office and were unable to get hold of anyone. They then tried contacting the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, which told them to contact Covered California.

Is anybody having fun yet?

Complete Message

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Howard Portnoy has written for HotAir, NewsBusters, Weasel Zippers, Conservative Firing Line, RedCounty, and New York’s Daily News. He has one published novel, Hot Rain, (G. P. Putnam’s Sons), and has been a guest on Radio Vice Online with Jim Vicevich, The Alana Burke Show, and The George Espenlaub Show.

Liberal Colleges Persecuting Conservatives AGAIN


Eagel Rising Banner

http://eaglerising.com/5033/liberal-colleges-persecuting-conservatives/#GFy4BLCKa5oVof1f.99

By / 8 March 2014

 It is becoming commonplace for colleges and universities to persecute and marginalize conservatives – but the most recent example shows how outrageous the behavior of leftist colleges is becoming.

Rutgers University in New Jersey had invited former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be their commencement speaker for the 2014 graduation ceremonies. Apparently, for the faculty at Rutgers, this is reason for protest.

Seriously.

The faculty at Rutgers has decided that Ms. Rice is not “qualified” to speak at the commencement of their students. They said she, “lacks “moral authority.” She fails to meet the standards of “exemplary citizenship” and she does not have what it takes to “inspire” graduating college seniors.”

Ridiculous.

This is what our liberal colleges have come to–where no one with conservative beliefs and values has a place among the halls of higher education.

Juan Williams from Fox News is noticing a trend out there –

“There is an added element at play here. There is a disgraceful double standard amongst liberals, particularly those in academia, in the hatred they direct at black conservatives.

We saw this last April when the conservative neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was forced to step down as a Commencement Speaker for Johns Hopkins University (where he ably served as the head of pediatric neurosurgery).

Liberals on the Hopkins campus mobilized against Carson because he criticized President Obama’s health care reform law and said that he opposed gay marriage.

I am not a conservative but I have spoken out for years against the staggering amount blind hatred directed at black conservatives by liberals.

Liberals are shockingly quick to demean and dismiss brilliant black people like Rice, Carson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), Professor Walter E. Williams and economist Thomas Sowell because they don’t fit into the role they have carved out for a black person in America.

Black Americans must be obedient liberals on all things or risk being called a race traitor or an Uncle Tom.”

It’s good to see Juan Williams defending conservatives – but its meaningless until more liberals begin speaking out against the injustice that is bred by leftist intolerance.

About the author: Onan Coca

Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA.

Website: http://www.eaglerising.com

Democrats scramble to block ‘New World Order’


Obama wants to ‘fast track’ job-killing, sovereignty-threatening plan

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/democrats-scramble-to-block-new-world-order/#ecmlL6tgbOIBDzBL.99

Published: 21 hours ago

author-image Jerome R. Corsi

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is  “Who Really Killed Kennedy?”

NEW YORK – As President Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, powerful groups in the Democratic Party base are organizing to oppose “fast track” authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping free-trade agreement the Obama administration is ready to push through Congress.

“President Obama can’t have it both ways,” Arthur Stamoulis, the spokesman for Citizens Trade Campaign, the group organizing the letter, told WND. “Either the president is for reducing income eligibility as we expect he will say in the State of the Union address, or he can push for fast-track legislation on the job-destroying TPP free-trade agreement. He can’t have it both ways.”

Jerome Corsi’s “Late Great USA” uncovers government deceptions that threaten U.S. sovereignty

The TPP is the first part of a two-ocean globalist plan the Obama administration is working quietly to put into place. The aim is to follow up the passage of the TPP with the finalization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union.

As WND reported, Obama announced in his 2013 State of the Union address the plan to add the trans-Pacific free-trade agreement to the trans-Atlantic agreement already in place.

“Fast-track” authority would allow the Obama administration to ram the TPP through Congress with a simple majority vote. The rules would limit debate so that no amendments could be introduced to modify the language of the agreement the Obama administration has negotiated behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, the power of the punch the Citizens Trade Campaign plans to deliver the White House can be seen by the letter’s signatories.

They include labor unions such as the AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; United Autoworkers (UAW); United Brotherhood of Carpenters; United Steelworkers (USW); and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Among the environmental organizations are 350.org, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club.

Family farm organizations include the National Family Farm Coalition, National Farmers Union and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. Consumer groups include Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, National Consumers League and Public Citizen.

“Income inequality and long-term unemployment are serious problems that the job-killing TPP would only worsen,” Stamoulis said.

He said calling for fast-track authority in the State of the Union address Tuesday night “would undercut positive proposals to battle growing income inequality and create middle class jobs which are expected to be the central focus of the president’s speech.”

“As short-sighted as such a call would be, even more short-sighted would be for Congress members on either side of the aisle to answer it, as they’re the ones who would be dealing with the political repercussions this November,” Stamoulis said.

On Wednesday, another group opposed to TPP, the U.S. Business & Industry Council, plans to deliver the second punch in the one-two punch act by following up the State of the Union address with a national press conference revealing the results of a bipartisan national poll on TPP.

In an unusual move, two pollsters that usually do not work together, Democratic pollster Gary Molyneux of Hart Research and Republican pollster Bob Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting, have collaborated to take the poll and report the results.

While Eden Gorden, spokeswoman for the U.S. Business & Industry Council, would not say in advance precisely what the poll results will show, it’s likely that the majority of responders would oppose the TPP as a job-killing measure. Critics charge the Obama administration negotiated it in secret and is now trying to rush it through Congress before the American public finds out how the trade measure compromises U.S. sovereignty.

On Jan. 14, WND reported Republicans in the House are preparing to follow the lead of the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rubber-stamp the TPP, the most sweeping free-trade agreement since NAFTA.

On Jan. 9, in a little-noticed statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, together with ranking member Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., announced they were introducing “fast track” trade promotion authority.

The last line of congressional resistance to TPP appears to be coming from House Democrats concerned that more U.S. union jobs will be lost in the free-trade “fast track” steamroller Republicans under Boehner and Democrats aligning with Reid plan to run through Congress.

Last year, 151 House Democrats, led by Representatives Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and George Miller, D-Calif., opposed to TPP wrote a letter to President Obama stating their opposition to using “outdated ‘Fast Track’ procedures that usurp Congress’s authority over trade matters.”

With Boehner’s decision to support Obama on TPP, the Republican Party appears ready to ignore concerns raised by GOP conservatives and various tea-party groups that the 12-nation deal further undermines U.S. sovereignty. The opponents argue it places major sectors of the U.S. economy under a new dispute-regulation mechanism that takes precedence over U.S. judges and courts.

As WND has reported, “fast track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority also has the function of reassuring foreign partners that the FTA negotiated by the executive branch will not be altered by Congress during the legislative process.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama declared that to “boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

“And tonight,” he said, “I’m announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”

The promise of creating new jobs drew congressional applause despite legitimate concerns that previous trade agreements, including NAFTA and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization, have resulted in the loss of millions of high-salary U.S. jobs to nations with less expensive job markets.

The 12 nations involved in the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

Devious election plot bypasses Constitution Strategy takes 36 states out of voting decision


WND EXCLUSIVE

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/devious-election-plot-bypasses-constitution/

author-image Aaron Klein About | Email | Archive

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.
ballot-box-vote

The National Popular Vote effort, which could see only 14 states – those with the largest populations – decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states, is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded election group.

The group, the Center for Voting and Democracy, received original seed money in 1997 from the Joyce Foundation, a non-profit that boasted President Obama served on its board at the time of the grant. Obama was a board member from July 1994 until December 2002.

The National Popular Vote, or NPV, is run by individuals with a history of support for the Democratic Party, WND found.

Last week, the Washington Post reported NPV is “now halfway to its goal of electing future presidents via the popular vote, after Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (D) made his state the latest to sign on.”

The Post story described NPV as a campaign seeking to “get states that comprise a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College –270, to be precise – to agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.”

The states will not be required to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner until NPV has signed up enough states to garner 270 electoral votes.

The Founding Fathers firmly rejected a purely popular vote to elect the president because they wanted to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller.

The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress.

Now the NPV effort could change the way Americans vote without amending the U.S. Constitution. The plan simply requires that enough states sign up by voting in their own legislatures and then having their governors approve.

It takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College.

To bypass the constitutional amendment process, NPV minimizes the number of states that would need to agree. Instead, once enough states agree to allot their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant.

With the addition of Rhode Island to the NPV effort, the pact now has nine states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 136 of the 270 electoral votes needed. The other states signed up are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont and California.

NPV is partnered with FairVote, a project of the Soros-funded Center for Voting and Democracy.

FairVote’s website expounds on its relationship with NVP:

FairVote advocates for a national popular vote for president, and has nurtured and supported the National Popular Vote plan to ensure that every vote for president is equally valued no matter where it is cast.

FairVote’s executive director Rob Richie co-authored Every Vote Equal, a book explaining how the National Popular Vote plan would work and why the United States desperately needs it, and Fairvote regularly works with advocacy leaders at the National Popular Vote organization to assist in getting to important legislation passed.

Richie, executive director of FairVote since he co-founded it in 1992, is also a member of the civil society committee of the Soros-led Bretton Woods Committee, which openly seeks to remake the world economy.

Richie’s book “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote” was co-authored with the NPV’s founder, John R. Koza.

In a Dec. 15, 2008, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros, wrote that it was time to junk the Electoral College.

Soros’s Open Society Institute funds the Center for Voting and Democracy, where FairVote is based.

The center’s website notes the group was kick-started in 1997 with two grants – one from the Open Society and another from the Joyce Foundation.

With Obama on its board, the Joyce Foundation also funded the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute; the National Council of La Raza and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among numerous other radical groups.

Meanwhile, the NPV leadership is comprised of Democratic Party supporters.

The organization’s chairman and major funder is John R. Koza. He was the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Scientific Games Inc., where he co-invented the rub-off instant lottery ticket used by state lotteries.

Koza, who has reportedly pledged $12 million to NPV, previously gave tens of thousands of dollars to various Democratic Party committees and liberal candidates and was an Al Gore elector in 2000, the Weekly Standard reported.

Another pledged NPV leader is Tom Golisano, founder and chairman of Paychex, the nation’s second largest payroll and human resource company. He co-founded the Independence Party of New York in 1994 and ran as the party’s gubernatorial candidate.

Golisano is a registered Republican, even though he supported John Kerry and gave $1 million to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

NPV’s secretary, Chris Pearson, served in the Vermont House of Representatives in 2006. In 2005, he was director of the Presidential Election Reform program at the Soros-funded FairVote.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

OPEN LETTER TO ALL VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES


Because the President Obama Administration, along with the Democratic Party and their willing media partners, have labeled all of you as “VULTURE” Capitalist, and because they have demonized what you do, lied about how you function and dehumanized the profession as being thieves taking from the poor and giving it to the rich, I propose the following:

  • Immediately stop all work with companies you are trying to save who are in States Governed by Democrats, especially those that have joined the bandwagon to bad-mouth all of you.
  • Go immediately into States governed by conservatives who appreciate all the companies you save, and therefore, all the jobs that are associated with those companies.
  • Look into Canada. They will welcome you with open arms.
  • Look into other countries who are going bankrupt. They will appreciate all the taxes you generate when you save companies and make the prosper.
  • As you leave each Democrat State, let the government know that they can be expecting more unemployment because you are taking your own money to States that are governed by those that understand what you do, and what you have to do in certain cases to save a company the their employees. Also let them know that because you are leaving, their tax revenues will drop dramatically.
  • Let the employees of those companies you are leaving to the Democratic Government that President Obama and the entire Democratic party feels their pain as they stand in line for unemployment.

That should make everyone happy because the Democratic governance can be free of you and your “vulture capitalism”. It will give them an opportunity to lie about something else.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: